| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Animal Welfare Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4
Corresponding author: Cassandra B. Tucker; e-mail:cassandra.tucker{at}agresearch.co.nz.
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Key Words: behavior • free stall • bedding • preference
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Dairy cattle prefer heavily bedded concrete stalls to lightly bedded mats (Jensen et al., 1988; Manninen et al., 2002), and deep-bedded stalls are preferred to stalls with concrete or geotextile mattresses covered with 2 to 3 kg of sawdust (Muller and Botha, 1997; Tucker et al., 2003). Lying times are reduced and standing times in stalls are increased when dairy cattle are housed on concrete surfaces (Haley et al., 2000; 2001; O’Connell and Meaney, 1997; Rushen et al., 2001). However, when concrete is covered with bedding, lying times are similar to those seen with soft mats (Wechsler et al., 2000; Manninen et al., 2002). Lying times also tend to be longer and standing times shorter for deep-bedded stalls compared with wood-covered stalls or mattresses (Muller and Botha, 1997; Tucker et al., 2003). Finally, the characteristic head-swinging behavior cattle perform before lying down has been used to evaluate the comfort of lying surfaces. Previous work has shown that cattle spend more time engaged in head-swinging behavior when entering a lying area without bedding than a bedded area (e.g., Müller et al., 1989), and are twice as likely to interrupt the head-swinging behavior when housed in a tie-stall system compared with a deep-bedded system or pasture (e.g., Ladewig and Smidt, 1989; Krohn and Munksgaard, 1993). However, tethering and a low level of bedding are often combined in these experiments, and this makes it difficult to draw conclusions about which feature influences head-swinging behavior before lying down.
Geotextile mattresses are gaining popularity, in part because this surface is marketed as being suitable for use with little or no bedding, thus decreasing labor and other expenses associated with maintaining free stalls. However, given the evidence outlined above, zero or low-bedding management for mattresses may reduce lying times and be less preferred than well-bedded mattresses. Thus, the objective of our study was to evaluate how the amount of bedding on mattresses influences dairy cattle behavior. Specifically, we tested how the quantity of sawdust bedding affected which stall cows chose to lie in (preference) when given access to several options. In addition, we measured how time spent lying and standing (stall usage) and head-swinging behavior changed when the animals were restricted to a single option.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Each stall was fitted with a Pasture Mat geotextile mattress (Promat Ltd., Seaforth, Ontario, Canada), and bedded with 1 of 3 levels of kiln-dried sawdust: 0, 1, and 7.5 kg. The lower 2 levels of bedding (0 and 1 kg) reflected the use of sawdust in common commercial practice. The highest value (7.5 kg) was chosen to provide an extremely well-bedded option, more similar to that found in deep-bedded stalls. The weight of the bedding was used to describe the treatments because the height of the sawdust could not be quantified consistently. In the 1-kg treatment, sawdust covered the entire stall surface, but small sections of the mattresses were visible through the bedding. Bedding was removed and reapplied and pens cleaned twice each day during the morning and afternoon feedings (0800 and 1500 h) to maintain the appropriate amount of bedding on the surface, as there was no bedding retainer.
Three similar test pens were used for the experiment, and trios of animals were tested simultaneously, with one cow in each pen. The location of the bedding treatments was allocated randomly and balanced for each pen, across trials. Five trios (15 animals) were used in the experiment, but information from 4 animals was lost due to technical malfunction, all from one pen (n = 11).
Each test consisted of 3 stages. For the first 7 d (adjustment phase), cows had free access to all 3 stalls. During the next 9 d (restriction phase), cows were allowed access to only a single stall at a time, each for a 3-d period, and the order of access to each treatment was assigned randomly without replacement and balanced across cows. Access to the other stalls was blocked with a wooden barrier hung across the entrance to the stall. During the last 3 d (free-choice phase), cows were again allowed free access to all 3 stalls.
The behavior of the cows was video recorded during the last 48-h period of the free-choice phase and of each restriction period, for a total of 8 d of recording for each cow. Each pen was recorded at 3 frames per second using a Panasonic AG-6720 VHS time-lapse video cassette recorder, a Panasonic WJ-FS 10 digital-frame switcher, and 3 Panasonic WV-BP330 CCTV cameras (Panasonic equipment manufactured in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada). Cameras were located with a view of only the 3 stalls, and a 100-W white light was hung 3 to 6 m above each set of stalls to facilitate recording at night. These recordings were watched continuously to measure 1) time spent lying in the stall, 2) time spent standing with the front hooves in the stall, 3) time spent standing with all 4 hooves in the stall, 4) the number of times the animal lay down in the stall (number of lying bouts), and 5) the number of times the animal entered the stall (number of visits where at least the front hooves were placed in the stall). In addition, in the 1-min period before each lying bout, we recorded the number of times the head swung from one side of the body to the other (crossing the center line) in a continuous motion with the nose oriented toward the stall surface.
Statistical Analysis
All standing behaviors (with front hooves in the stall, 4 hooves in the stall, and total) were log (base 10) transformed to meet the assumption of normality. All standing behaviors, time spent lying, average lying bout length, and the number of lying bouts and visits were analyzed using a mixed model (SAS, 1999). This model included order as a random factor and used a AR(1) covariance structure. The repeated statement included a term for order, and the individual animals were treated as the subject. The linear and quadratic effects of treatment were tested with a contrast statement in this mixed model. The coefficients used in these contrast statements were generated with PROC IML. The quadratic effect was never significant and is not discussed further. All P values given in the results section are for the linear contrast. The number of head swings performed during the restriction phase was not normally distributed, and transformations did not remedy this. Thus, the nonparametric Page’s L-test for ordered alternatives was used to test whether the number of head swings changed with the level of bedding. One animal was an extreme outlier (>3 SD from the mean) for both standing and lying times when restricted to a bare mattress (Figure 1
). In the case of standing behavior, inclusion of this outlier into the data set altered the conclusions drawn, and this animal was removed from the analysis of all dependent variables in the restriction phase. Preference during the free-choice phase was based on time spent lying or standing in each stall and compared using Friedman’s rank test for all 11 animals.
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
; P = 0.01). The number of lying bouts followed the same pattern (P = 0.04), and there was no difference in the average duration of lying bouts (P = 0.37). The number of visits to the stall was similar across the 3 levels of bedding: 6.8, 6.7, and 6.6 visits/24 h for 0, 1, and 7.5 kg of sawdust, respectively (SE: 0.40, P = 0.61). There were large individual differences between cows in the amount of time spent standing in the stalls (range of 21 to 364 min/24 h); cows also differed in whether they stood with only the front or all 4 hooves in the stall. For example, averaging across treatments, one cow spent 93% of her total standing time in the stall with only her front hooves on the stall surface. In contrast, another individual spent 86% of her total standing time with all 4 hooves in the stall. In addition to individual variation in standing times, the quantity of sawdust in the stall influenced the amount of time spent standing with only the front hooves in the stall, and animals spent the most time in this position in the stall with no sawdust (58, 51, and 38 min/24 h for the 0, 1, and 7.5 kg of sawdust, respectively; P = 0.03). Total time spent standing in the stall (with either 4 or only the front hooves in the stall) followed a similar pattern to standing with only the front hooves in the stall. In contrast, standing with 4 hooves in the stall was similar across treatments (27, 22, 21 min/24 h; P = 0.55). Finally, when animals were housed with access to 7.5 kg of sawdust, they performed, on average, less head-swinging behavior per lying bout than when housed on the 1- and 0-kg treatments (0.63, 0.99, and 1.00 head swings per lying bout for 7.5, 1, and 0 kg of sawdust, respectively; P < 0.05).
|
; P < 0.05). All 11 cows showed a clear preference for lying on the deepest bedding, with 4 of the 11 cows never standing or lying on the other surfaces during this phase of the study.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
During the free-choice phase, all cows chose the stall with 7.5 kg of bedding, regardless of whether their preference was based on lying or standing time. The preferences were clear, with cows spending 85% or more of their lying time in the heavily bedded stalls. However, the cows used in the current experiment had been previously housed in a barn with both deep-bedded stalls and mattresses covered with some sawdust (similar to the 1 kg/d treatment); hence, limited previous experience with bare mattresses may have influenced the results of both the free-choice and restriction phases. However, as the animals likely had exposure to both deep-bedded sawdust and lightly-bedded mattresses before this experiment, it seems less probable that differences in previous experience can explain the differences in response to the 1- and 7.5-kg treatments. In addition, the clear preferences for the well-bedded option are consistent with other studies that have found that the amount of bedding influences preferences for free stalls (Jensen et al., 1988). Finally, the clear preferences for one level of bedding indicates that dairy cattle have the sensory capacity to distinguish between the various options presented. Although it is unclear which cues the dairy cattle may be using to distinguish between the options, this ability is likely a basis for changes in behavior when the animals have no choice.
Cows spent more time lying down on mattresses with more sawdust bedding. For example, on average, animals spent an additional 1.5 h/24 h lying down in stalls when restricted to mattresses covered with 7.5 kg of sawdust, compared with a bare mattress. These results agree with limited evidence from Wander (1976) that greater depth of sawdust is associated with longer lying times. The number of lying bouts followed a pattern similar to lying time, but there was no difference in the average duration of lying bouts for the 3 treatment levels. Similarly, several other authors have reported lower lying times and fewer lying bouts on some lying surfaces (e.g., concrete) compared with other surfaces (e.g., mattresses; reviewed in Table 3). The additional sawdust may improve the comfort of the mattresses for changing positions between lying and standing, as the animals get up and lie down more often in the heavily bedded stall. Indeed, given that the number of visits to the free stall was similar among the 3 levels of sawdust, the additional bedding seems to influence the decision to lie down, but not to enter the stall. Several other authors have also reported changes in lying times associated with the number of lying bouts, but no difference in average duration of lying bouts (all but Haley et al., 2000, in Table 3). Other aspects of free-stall design have been shown to influence the average length of lying bouts (free-stall width: Tucker et al., 2004), and it has been suggested that longer average bout durations may indicate the comfort of the surface while cows are recumbent. Based on this logic, it is possible that the amount of sawdust may not have affected the comfort of the surface while the cow was recumbent but did seem to influence the decision to lie down.
|
Standing behavior also changed in response to the level of sawdust on geotextile mattresses. Cows spent an additional 20 min/24 h standing with only the front hooves in the stall when provided a bare mattress compared with a stall with 7.5 kg of bedding, but there was no difference in the amount of time spent standing with all 4 hooves in the stall. Standing with only the front hooves in the stall is not well understood. Galindo et al. (2000) speculated that dairy cattle perform this behavior to avoid dominant cattle within the group; however, this is clearly not the motivation for the animals in this experiment, as the animals were individually housed. Alternatively, Tucker et al. (2003) found that cows spent more total time standing on mattresses covered with 2 to 3 cm of sawdust compared with deep-bedded surfaces and suggested that mattresses may be more comfortable to stand on. However, there are 2 differences between the current experiment and Tucker et al. (2003) that undermine this interpretation. In Tucker et al. (2003), there were differences in total standing time, but these were not always accompanied by differences in lying behavior (time or number of bouts) between mattresses and deep-bedded sawdust. Secondly, in Tucker et al. (2003), the difference in total standing time was driven by differences in standing with 4 hooves in the stall rather than in standing with only the front hooves in the stall (reanalysis of Tucker et al., 2003). In contrast, in the restriction phase of the current experiment, the difference in total standing time seems more influenced by standing with only the front hooves in the stall. In addition, in the free-choice phase of the current experiment, only one cow (number 2, Table 2
) stood in a stall that she did not use for lying (1 kg of sawdust). Thus, it appears that animals were not seeking out different surfaces solely to stand on, but that cows were spending more time standing on those surfaces on which they were more reluctant to lie down. In a recent study on stall width (Tucker et al., 2004), we also found that cows spent more time standing in stall designs that were associated with lower lying times.
The amount of sawdust on geotextile mattresses influences lying, head-swinging, and standing behavior, but the biological relevance of these changes in behavior is unclear. Lying time is thought to be important to dairy cattle for several reasons. Cows spend a large portion of their time lying; even a 3-h deprivation of lying is sufficient to cause cows to forego eating in order to lie down (Metz, 1985). In addition, cows housed on concrete for 21 h/d will spend more time lying down during 3 h of pasture access, compared with animals housed on woodchips 21 h/d (Fisher et al., 2003). Several physiological changes are associated with reduced lying time; these include a decrease in circulating levels of growth hormone (Munksgaard and Lvendahl, 1993), a short-term increase in plasma cortisol levels (e.g., Fisher et al., 2002) and an increased incidence of lameness (Singh et al., 1993; Leonard et al., 1994). The time spent standing with the front hooves in the stall has also been associated with physical consequences including an increased number of claw horn lesions (Colam-Ainsworth et al., 1989; Galindo and Broom, 2000; Flower and Weary, 2002). However, little is known about the nature of the relationship between time spent standing and lying and these deleterious consequences. For example, are the average lying times seen with the bare mattresses (12.3 h/d) enough to cause some problems, or do these only occur with extremely short lying times, such as the 3 h/d shown by the one outlier cow? The average lying time on the bare mattress falls well within the range of lying times reported in previous studies, including those in which cattle were housed on pasture (e.g., Dechamps et al., 1989; Krohn and Munksgaard, 1993; Singh et al., 1993). Indeed, we lack the information to interpret the biological importance of relatively small changes in behavior, such as differences in lying, standing, and head-swinging, between the 3 treatments tested in the current experiment. A more comprehensive understanding of how lying and standing times relate to health is needed, and future research should focus on this issue.
Previous work has shown that mattresses with little bedding are associated with a higher incidence and more severe hock lesions compared with deep-bedded surfaces (Weary and Taszkun, 2000; Mowbray et al., 2003). Indeed, Nilsson (1992) found that hock injuries were more common when cattle were housed on surfaces with less penetration (or harder surfaces). By covering mattresses with a thick layer of bedding (as in 7.5 kg of sawdust treatment), the surface will be softer and is likely to reduce the incidence of injury. More work is needed to understand the importance of various physical properties of stall surfaces (e.g., thermal conductance, visual appearance, coefficient of friction) to dairy cattle. Claw health may also relate to lying surface: Increased amounts of bedding reduce problems with hoof health (Colam-Ainsworth et al., 1989).
The number of lying bouts, time spent standing with only the front hooves in the stall, and the number of head swings all changed in response to the amount of sawdust on the geotextile mattress. Based on these changes, increased amounts of sawdust bedding appear to increase the suitability of the surface in terms of the decision to lie down. Indeed, all cows could clearly distinguish between the 3 treatments and showed clear preferences for lying and standing in stalls with more sawdust. Thus, to promote comfort, geotextile mattresses are best managed with copious bedding.
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Received for publication December 25, 2003. Accepted for publication March 24, 2004.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Dippel, M. Dolezal, C. Brenninkmeyer, J. Brinkmann, S. March, U. Knierim, and C. Winckler Risk factors for lameness in freestall-housed dairy cows across two breeds, farming systems, and countries J Dairy Sci, November 1, 2009; 92(11): 5476 - 5486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Fregonesi, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary Cow preference and usage of free stalls compared with an open pack area J Dairy Sci, November 1, 2009; 92(11): 5497 - 5502. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. B. Tucker, D. M. Weary, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and K. A. Beauchemin Cow comfort in tie-stalls: Increased depth of shavings or straw bedding increases lying time J Dairy Sci, June 1, 2009; 92(6): 2684 - 2690. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Fregonesi, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, C. B. Tucker, D. M. Veira, and D. M. Weary Neck-rail position in the free stall affects standing behavior and udder and stall cleanliness J Dairy Sci, May 1, 2009; 92(5): 1979 - 1985. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. B. Cook, M. J. Marin, R. L. Mentink, T. B. Bennett, and M. J. Schaefer Comfort Zone-Design Free Stalls: Do They Influence the Stall Use Behavior of Lame Cows? J Dairy Sci, December 1, 2008; 91(12): 4673 - 4678. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Platz, F. Ahrens, J. Bendel, H. H. D. Meyer, and M. H. Erhard What Happens with Cow Behavior When Replacing Concrete Slatted Floor by Rubber Coating: A Case Study J Dairy Sci, March 1, 2008; 91(3): 999 - 1004. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Norring, E. Manninen, A. M. de Passille, J. Rushen, L. Munksgaard, and H. Saloniemi Effects of Sand and Straw Bedding on the Lying Behavior, Cleanliness, and Hoof and Hock Injuries of Dairy Cows J Dairy Sci, February 1, 2008; 91(2): 570 - 576. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Fregonesi, D. M. Veira, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary Effects of Bedding Quality on Lying Behavior of Dairy Cows J Dairy Sci, December 1, 2007; 90(12): 5468 - 5472. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Fregonesi, C. B. Tucker, and D. M. Weary Overstocking Reduces Lying Time in Dairy Cows J Dairy Sci, July 1, 2007; 90(7): 3349 - 3354. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. Hernandez-Mendo, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, D. M. Veira, and D. M. Weary Effects of Pasture on Lameness in Dairy Cows J Dairy Sci, March 1, 2007; 90(3): 1209 - 1214. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. B. Tucker, G. Zdanowicz, and D. M. Weary Brisket boards reduce freestall use. J Dairy Sci, July 1, 2006; 89(7): 2603 - 2607. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. B. Tucker, D. M. Weary, A. M. de Passille, B. Campbell, and J. Rushen Flooring in front of the feed bunk affects feeding behavior and use of freestalls by dairy cows. J Dairy Sci, June 1, 2006; 89(6): 2065 - 2071. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. B. Cook, T. B. Bennett, and K. V. Nordlund Monitoring Indices of Cow Comfort in Free-Stall-Housed Dairy Herds J Dairy Sci, November 1, 2005; 88(11): 3876 - 3885. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. B. Tucker, D. M. Weary, and D. Fraser Influence of Neck-Rail Placement on Free-Stall Preference, Use, and Cleanliness J Dairy Sci, August 1, 2005; 88(8): 2730 - 2737. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Drissler, M. Gaworski, C. B. Tucker, and D. M. Weary Freestall Maintenance: Effects on Lying Behavior of Dairy Cattle J Dairy Sci, July 1, 2005; 88(7): 2381 - 2387. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Huzzey, M. A. G. von Keyserlingk, and D. M. Weary Changes in Feeding, Drinking, and Standing Behavior of Dairy Cows During the Transition Period J Dairy Sci, July 1, 2005; 88(7): 2454 - 2461. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
